1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

LAR RY BOHA NN ON v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty

No. P -27251 W F red Axley, Judge

No. W2004-00961-C CA-M R3-P C - F iled April 22, 2005

Th e Pe tit ion e r, L arry

B oh a nn on , a

pp e a ls fr om the tr ia l c ou rt ’s dis mis sa l of his pe tit ionse e kin g po stconviction relief. The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the trial court’ s denial of r elief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition was filed outside the applica

ble statute of limitations and is, therefor e, time-barr ed. Ac cording ly , we a ffirm the dis mis sa l of

the tr ia l c ou rt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H A Y ES and J.C. M C L IN , J J . joined.

B ri tto n Josh ua

Al la n, Me mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Renee W. Turne r, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, the State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On Se p te mb e r

1 , 2 0 0 0 , th e Pe ti ti o n e r

e n te r e d a g u il ty p le a inth e Sh e lb y

Co u n ty Criminal Court to one count of felon in posse ssion of a handg un. For this offense, the trial court imposed a
se nte nc e of

on e y ear in the c ou nty

wo rk ho us e . In July

20 01 , Pe tit ion e r f

ile d a “ Mo tio n to Va c a te Senten ce o r i n the Alternative Motion for Pleading .” The reque st was made by Petitioner for theT h is C o u rt g ra n te d P e tit io n e r le a v e to late -f ile a no tice o f ap p e a l d o c u m e n t. S e e L a rry B o h a n n o n v . S ta te , 1 W 2 0 0 4

- 0 0 9 6 1

- C C A

- M R 3

- P C (T enn. C ri m
. A p p
. , at Jackson, M ay 3 , 20 0 4 ) ( order ).
2 purpose o f enabling Petitioner to participate in prog rams available at F .C.I . Memphis, where Pe tit ion e r w a s c on fi ne d se rv ing a fi ft e e n- y e ar f

e de ra l se nte nc e . T he re c or d b e fo re thi s Co urt f a ils to indicate whe ther the tria l court ruled upon this motion.

I n Marc h 2003, the Petitioner filed a “ Motion s ee k i n g P o s t -convic tion relief or in the Alternative Wit hdraw Guilty Plea.” As gr ounds for relief, the Petiti oner a lleg ed that (1) trial counsel was ineffec tive, (2) the sear ch of the P etitioner violated his rig hts under the F ourth Amendment, (3) the Petitioner was denied a speedy trial, and (4) the Petitioner’s g uiltyplea wa s not knowingly and volunta ri l y entered. On April 11, 2003, counsel was a ppointed to repre sent Petitioner and an amende d petition for post-conviction re lief wa s filed o n J anuary 22, 2004. The a mended pe tition relied upon two g rounds for r elief, i.e., ine ff e c tive a ssi stanc e of

c ou ns e l a nda n in vo lun tary g uil ty plea. On Fe bruary 19, 2004, the trial court denied relief , finding the petition time-barr ed. Counsel was late r appointed f

or purpose s of appe al and a notice of a

ppeal wa s filed on May

10, 2004. 1
On appe al to this Court, Petitioner asserts that the one-y ear statute of limitations does not bar the petition as the time period was tolled by the fil ing of the J uly 2001 motion to vacate sentenc e. I n support of his position, P etitioner re lies u p o n t h i s C o urt’s opinion in R. B. Tob y v . S tate , No. E2000-03127-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 WL 31026968, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Sept. 11, 2002), for the proposition that his motion to vacate s entenc e shoul d have be en tre ated a s a petition for post-conviction relief

. The P etitioner’s re liance upon R. B. Tob y v . S tate is mispl ace d. I n R.B. Toby , this Court held t hat t he trial court properly treated t he mot ion to vacate s entenc e as a petition fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f b e c aus e the c laim rai sed wa s o ne on ly c og niza ble un de r the Pos tConviction Procedur e Act. Id. I n the prese nt c ase, the J uly 2001 motion to vac ate se ntence does not alleg e a g round for relief

cog nizable under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. Rather , the motion req u e s te d th a t th e tria l c o u r t v a c a te h is s e n te n c e o r ru n th e s e n te n c e c o n c u rr e n t t o h is f e d e r al
se nte nc e in o rd e r t o p e rm it him to pa rt ic ipate in pr og rams of

fe re d by the F e de ra l B ur e au o f P ri so ns
. T h e Pe ti ti o n e r a ll e g e d n o c o n s ti tu ti o n a l in f irmi ty r e lati n g to h is Sh e lb y Co u n ty c o n v ic tion and
se nte nc e . A c c or din g ly , th e tr ia l c ourt had no ob lig a tio n to tr e a t th e motiona s a pe tit ionfo r p os tconviction re lief. Se e Arc he r v . S tate , 851 S.W .2d 157, 165 (Tenn. 1993) (if plea ding is re quest that may be g rante d under Post-Conviction Act, trial court may treat as p et i t ion for post-convic tion relief ).

Pe tit ion e r' s c on vic tio n b e c a me fi na l onOc tob e r 1 , 2 00 1. Th us , u nd e r the app lic able statut e of lim itatio ns , Pe tit ion e r h a d u nti l O c tob e r 1 , 2 00 2, in w hic h to fi le a c la im f or po stconviction re lief. The pr esent pe tition was not filed until M arc h 2003, well outside the one- y ear statute of limitations. Under the Post-Conviction P roce dure A ct of 1995, e x ceptions to the statute of limitations are explicitlyset forth, i.e., (1) c laims based upon a ne w rule of constitutional law applicable to a petitioner' s case , (2) c laims based upon new scientific e vidence sh ow ing inn oc e nc e , a nd(3 ) c la ims ba se d u po n e nh a nc e d s e nte nc e s th a t w e re e nh a nc e d b e c aus e3

of convic tions subsequently found to be illeg al. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-202(b) (1)- (3). Petitioner has fa iled to assert one of these e x ceptions for tolling the statute. Hecites no new constitutional rule, ref

ers to no new scientific e vidence , and make s no claim that an e arlier conviction has be en overturned. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-206(g ).

Th e Pe tit ion e r’ s c la ims are tim e -b arr e d. Th e po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt didno t e rr

in summarily

dismiss ing his pe tition. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206( b). Ac cording ly , it is ordered that th e State ’s mot ionis g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is a ff ir me d ina c c or da nc e wi th Rul e 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ 

### JOHN EVERETT W ILLIAMS, J UDGE